CHAPTER THREE

HADHRAT MARIAMas

AND HADHRAT IBNE MARIAMas

Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas adversaries have
often manipulated his statement in relation to him being first named Hadhrat
Maryas after which the spirit of Hadhrat Jesusas
was infused in him as a result of which he became pregnant by way of metaphor
and eventually took birth as Hadhrat Ibne Mariamas.
Hence, the author of Two in One also joins the bandwagon to ridicule
this spintually charged concept and denounce Hadhrat Ahmadas
as an imbecile.1 Nonetheless, before
one proceeds to discuss this concept in detail one would quote Abdul Hafeez's
own citation of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas experience and expose
the fallacy of his analysis. He quotes Hadhrat Ahmadas
as having stated:

'He [God] in the third part of Braheen e Ahmadiyya, named me MARY; then,
as evident from Braheen e Ahmadiyya, I was developed for two years with
the quality of Mary then........ as with MARY [peace be upon her], the
soul of JESUS was breathed into me and metaphorically speaking, I became
pregnant and finally after many months - which was not more than 10 months
- through the inspiration which is mentioned in the end of Braheen e Ahmadlyya
Part 4, I was converted from MARY to JESUS. This is how I became Ibne-e-Mariam
[or Son of Mary].'2

He then proceeds to analyse this statement and summarise as:

'Meaning first he was made Mary. Then he became pregnant, then after
10 months he was delivered from his own uterus as Jesus, son of Mary. What
a logic! The whole building of Qadianism is founded on this ridiculous
idea. Everybody can well imagine what sort of religion it is.'3

In the first instance it should be observed that according to this hostile
citation itself, Hadhrat Ahmadas did not claim that
he was made Mary as allegedly stated by the author of Two in
One but that he was named Mary. What could be so objectionable
about a person being named Mary by God and why should this be considered
ridiculous when the Holy Ouran categorises believers into two categories,
those like Assiya, the wife of Pharaoh and those like Hadhrat Maryas.
It states:

'And God sets forth as an example to those who believe, the wife of
Pharaoh: Behold she said: O my Lord! build for me in nearness to Thee,
a mansion in the garden and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save
me from those that do wrong. And Mary daughter of Imran, who guarded her
chastity; and We breathed into [her body] of Our spirit; and she testified
to the truth of the words of her Lord and of his Revelations, and was one
of the devout [servants].'4

What then is so ridiculous about being named Mary when all believers
are, without exception likened to either of these two women and Hadhrat
Ahmadas, being of the higher order of believers, was
named by God as Mary - Hadhrat Maryas being the higher
order of the believers known to the language of the Holy Quran?

Now, if Abdul Hafeez should consider it ridiculous that he, personally,
be named Mary as he considers Hadhrat Ahmadas being
named after her a ridiculous idea, then maybe he would not object to being
called Assiya, the second category of believers known to the Quran. However,
if he considers being named Assiya a ridiculous idea also, then his only
option would be to be identified with either of the only other two categories
of human beings known to the Holy Quran and be named after either of them.
The Holy Quran states:

'God sets forth for an example to the unbelievers the wife of Noah and
the wife of Lut: They were [respectively] under two of our righteous Servants,
but they were false to their [husbands], and they profited nothing before
God on their account but were told: Enter ye the Fire along with [others]
that enter.'5

Once again, one leaves the choice to the author of Two in One
to decide which of the four categories of human beings known to the Quran
he would prefer to be identified with and named after. If he considers
being named after any four of these women as a ridiculous idea, then he
would be suggesting that he is not a human being at all since the Holy
Quran does not know of a fifth category of the human species. In that event,
may one enquire of Abdul Hafeez as to what is he, if he is not a human
being?

The second point which one should note in the citation of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas
statement contained in Two in One is that he never claimed to have
been made Mary as alleged by Abdul Hafeez but that he was developed
for two years with the qualities of Mary. Although a proper translation
of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original statement would have been that 'he was
nurtured in the qualities of Mary for two years,' yet, even if one
was to accept this linguistically poor translation in the hostile publication,
one cannot see what could be so objectionable and ridiculous in being developed
as a person for two years with the qualities of Hadhrat Maryas.

This statement by Hadhrat Ahmadas indicates that
for a period of as much as two years, he spent his life being invested
with the qualities possessed by Hadhrat Maryas, the
most prominent of these being her sense of dependence upon the Gracious
God, Allah6 and of duty and obligation
to Him7; her being purified and chosen
above others of her time8; honoured
by God Almighty and granted nearness to Him9
and her purity10 and truthfulness.11
One fails to see what is so ridiculous for one to be nurtured in those
excellent qualities previously posessed by a righteous and pious person
who had been declared by the Holy Quran to be an example for all the righteous
and pious people in the world.

Thirdly, the aforementioned citation of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas
statement contained in the hostile publication also indicates that the
pregnancy being spoken of here was in the metaphoric sense. Hence
Abdul Hafeez's vile caricature of a couple with a common pregnant stomach12
and of a pregnant man13 and also
his sordid assertion of 'remaining big with Jesus for not more than ten
months'l4 and of being 'delivered
from one's own uterus'l5 is thoroughly
unjustified - there being absolutely no grounds whatsoever in assuming
a symbolic representffion to be evidence of the happening of a factual
event.

Nonetheless, since the author of Two in One has subjected Hadhrat
Ahmad'sas aforementioned spiritual experience of being
spiritually born from within himself to such sordid ridicule, what needs
to be investigated is whether Islamic thought accepts any such concept
wherein a person becomes pregnant metaphorically and gives birth
to himself from within himself. Islamic literature indicates that according
to Hadhrat Muhammadsa:

'No one shall enter the kingdom of heaven who has not been born twice.'16

What, if one may ask Abdul Hafeez did Hadhrat Muhammadsa
mean when he stated that no person shall enter the kingdom of heaven unless
born twice? Did he suggest that a person will have to return to one's embryonic
state and once again be physically born through the loins of a woman? If
the author of Two in One contends that he did, then has Abdul Hafeez
taken necessary steps to revert to his prenatal state and be born again
through the uterus of whosoever he took his first birth to ensure his safe
passage to the kingdom of heaven which, according to the above Hadeeth,
none shall enter unless born again? If he has not, then is it possible
that he is averse to being reborn and, therefore, content to be excluded
from the kingdom of heaven? To every sane person, the aforementioned pronouncement
of Hadhrat Muhammadsa does not suggest a second physical
birth but as sufic literature indicates, it relates to one's spiritual
birth. Hadhrat Shahab ud Din Suharwardirh explained
that for one to experience this phenomenon:

'The disciple becomes a part of the master, just as a child is a part
of its father in its physical birth. Thus, is the disciple born from its
master in its spiritual birth.'17

In view of the aforementioned statement, most sufis of Islam have, before
reaching a stage of high spiritual excellence within their own right subjected
themselves to the rigorous discipline of discipleship to their masters
- to become a part of them and be born of them in their second birth. In
that event, one would assume that Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh
must have become a part of Hadhrat Khawaja Usman Harunirh;
Hadhrat Nizam ud Din Auliarh of Hadhrat Baba Farid
ud Din Shakar Ganjrh; Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh
of Hadhrat Shams Tabrizrh; Hadhrat Ma'soom Ali Shah
Mirrh of Sayid Ali Raza of Delhirh;
Hadhrat Shah Ismail Shaheedrh of Hadhrat Sayid Ahmad
Shah Barelvirh; Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Qasim of Nanautarh
of Shah Abdul Ghani and Maulvi Abdullah Ghaznavi of Hadhrat Said Ameerrh
of Koth - and having initially become a part of their masters they must
have been born from within them. Would Abdul Hafeez then consider a crude
caricature of two men with a common pregnant abdomen similar to the one
of a man and a woman with a common pregnant abdomen found on the cover
of his book appropriate for these saints and their disciples since in every
one of these instances, the disciples become a part of their respective
masters to be born from them as Hadhrat Shahab ud Din Suharwardirh
explained they must in their spiritual birth?

Abdul Hafeez's intellectual capacity and spiritual insight are far below
the requisite level for him to understand this concept of the second birth
of a person aspiring to enter the kingdom of heaven. Nonetheless, the preceding
discussion on this question should conclusively establish the validity
of the concept of spiritual rebirth being an integral part of Islamic thought.
Hence, the only issues which need to be addressed now is whether there
is any such concept in Islam where a person, rather than being born in
one's spiritual rebirth through a spiritual master can take birth from
within one's self and whether Islamic thought subscribes to any such phenomenon
where God blows His spirit into an individual whereby one becomes metaphorically
pregnant to be born from within one's self in the manner in which Hadhrat
Ahmadas stated he did with his statement in Kashti
Nuh to the effect that:

'In the third part of Braheen e Ahmadiyya, God had named me Mary and
as apparent from it, I was nurtured in the qualities of Mary for two years.
When a period of two years lapsed then, as stated on page 496 of the 4th
volume of Braheen e Ahmadiyya, the soul of Jesus was infused in me as it
was infused in Mary and, in an allegoric sense, I was stated to be pregnant.
Thereafter, affer many months not exceeding a period of ten months after
this revelation, I was, through a revelation recorded at the end of Braheen
e Ahmadiyya on page 556, named Jesus and hence I came to be the son of
Mary.'18

If there is any such concept in Islamic thought which accepts that such
a phenomenon could occur, then the entire premise of this foul criticism
levelled against Hadhrat Ahmadas becomes evidence of
Abdul Hafeez's ignorance of Islamic religious knowledge.

Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh, a noble sage of his
time was also the founder of the Jalaali school of sufism. He discussed
the concept of spiritual pregnancy at length and stated:

'God confines free spirits into bodies and makes each body pregnant
by the spirit. Each of us is a Messiah for the world.'19

The free spirit confined into bodies spoken of here by the venerable
saint does not refer to the infusion of that which makes a woman physically
pregnant. This should be evident from the above quotation itself. However,
if the author of Two in One refuses to accept this assertion that
the pregnancy spoken of here is in fact a spiritual pregnancy, then one
offers a further explanation of this concept in the words of the aforementioned
sage himself who stated:

'The Whole forms a relation with the part and from this, just as a woman
receives a sperm from man, the sense of man receives a pearl. The soul
of the man then becomes pregnant as did Mary and from this pregnancy is
born a Messiah. This Messiah is not the Messiah who lived in the past,
but is a Messiah whose glory is not easy to comprehend. When the spirit
of God makes pregnant the spirit of man, that spirit then makes the world
pregnant. This produces a spiritual revolution and resurrection in the
world which is so grand as to defy description.'20

Now, when one refers to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement in Kashti Nuh
which has been subjected to such ridicule by Abdul Hafeez in his publication,
Two in One, one finds that this is exactly the phenomenon which
he declared to have experienced. He stated:

'The soul of Jesus was infused in me as it was infused in Mary and,
in an allegoric sense, I was stated to be pregnant. Thereafter, after many
months, not exceeding a period of ten months after this revelation, I was,
through a revelation recorded at the end of Braheen e Ahmadiyya on page
556, named Jesus and hence I came to be the son of Mary.'21

What judgement would the author of Two in One now pronounce against
Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh for having acknowledged
the feasibility of a man receiving a pearl from the Whole, i.e., God Almighty,
just as a woman receives a sperm from a man and thereafter the man becoming
pregnant with the spirit of God as did Hadhrat Maryas
and the Messiah being born of this pregnancy? Would he state that Hadhrat
Jalal ud Din Rumi'srh idea is ridiculous as he states
in relation to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement suggesting
the same idea?22 Would this petty
pir from Gujjo, who has absolutely no appreciation of the beauty of this
spiritual concept, state that the whole building of the Jalaali school
of thought in sufism is founded on a ridiculous idea as he does in relation
to Ahmadiyya Muslim thought on account of a similar statement?23
Would he therefore denounce Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh
as a mad man for having previously subscribed to the same beliefs as Hadhrat
Ahmad'sas, as he has had the impertinence to denounce
Hadhrat Ahmadas?24
Would the author of Two in One also consider it proper of him to
draw a caricature of Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh depicting
him as a pregnant man looking at himself in a mirror questioning why he
has been missed from the Guinness Book of Records, similar to the one sketched
in his book25 since the founder of
the Jalaali school of Sufism subscribed to this concept of a man being
made spiritually pregnant by the spirit of God and thereafter being reborn
from within himself? Also, he justifies his rude sketch of a man and a
woman with a common pregnant stomach on the cover of his publication with
the statement:

'To make this belief more simple and understandable at a glance, this
title cover has been prepared, which is nothing but an artist's impression
of the above quotation, so that these sick people can visualize the basis
of their religion.'26

Apparently, the quotation which Abdul Hafeez alludes to above is Hadhrat
Ahmad'sas statement in Kashti Nuh in relation
to being infused with the spirit of Jesusas and, in
the allegoric sense, he became pregnant. But, it has already been shown
that according to Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh, God
confines such spirits into individuals to make each body pregnant by the
spirit. This spirit of Whole, i.e., God Almighty forms a relation with
the part, i.e., the man and from it, just as a woman receives a sperm from
man, so does the man receive a pearl from Him. Consequently, these two
fuse together to produce a pregnancy and give birth to a Messiah as Hadhrat
Maryas became pregnant and gave birth to the Messiahas?
Therefore, there is absolutely no difference in the beliefs of the respective
founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the Jalaali School of Sufism
in relation to this issue. Would the author of Two in One, in the
interest of making Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumi'srh beliefs
more simple and understandable at a glance, consider it proper for him
to caricature a similar artist's impression of Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh
as he has done on the cover page of his publication to allegedly make Hadhrat
Ahmad'sas beliefs more simple and understandable at
a glance?

In the event that he wishes to argue that Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh
never claimed to have experienced this phenomenon, may one caution him
that according to the revered saint 'whether the word of God is from behind
the curtain or not, He bestows the very thing which He gave to Mary.'27
He also stated that 'if this veil be lifted from the soul, every one of
them would say, I am the Messiah.'28
Apparently, this veil was lifted for Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh
since he not only stated that 'God confines free spirits into bodies and
makes each body pregnant by the spirit,'29
but he also declared in relation to himself and the sufis of the Ummah
that 'each one of them is a Messiah for the world.'30
He stated:

'I am Jesus, but whoever receives life from my breath lives forever.
Those who were brought to life by Jesus dies, but fortunate are they who
entrusted their lives to this Jesus.'31

Abdul Hafeez has published this filthy artist's impression on the cover
page of his book with the view that those who subscribe to this concept
of the spiritual birth of a person from within one's self through the bounty
of God should realise how sick they are and also visualise the basis of
their religion.32 Would he now draw
a similar caricature of Hadhrat Jalal ud Rumirh who
held the same view as Hadhrat Ahmadas and who also
claimed to have been born as Jesus in a similar manner as Hadhrat Ahmadas
so that the author of Two in One may illustrate to those who subscribe
to Jalaali sufic thought the state of their mind and the basis of their
religion?

This ignorant pir from Gujjo may, to his heart's wont, consider this
idea of a person being made spiritually pregnant by the spirit of God and
of being born in their second birth from within themselves a ridiculous
idea and evidence of imbecility and therefore a subject of obnoxious satire.
But this does not alter the fact that most sufis of the ummah subscribed
to this concept and many claimed to have been spiritually born an Ibne Mariamas
in this manner which is considered ridiculous or sign of imbecility by
people of meagre intellectual understanding of matters pertairung to spiritual
life. For instance, Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh
was of the opinion:

'If the Holy Spirit continues to give succour, everyday in the world
the Mary of the time would give birth to Jesus.'33

In the opinion of men of understanding, the Mary referred to in this
statement does not relate to women in particular nor does the giving of
birth to Jesus every day pertain to women bearing children in this world
every day who would be named Jesus. It is addressed to believers of the
higher order likened unto Hadhrat Maryas by the Quran34
- people who, with the succour of God achieve an inner perfection of the
soul like the blessed virgin Mary'sas son whom God
gave manifest signs and strengthened with the spirit of holiness.35
Hence, the patron saint of Ajmeer Sharif stated in relation to himself:

'Every moment, the Holy Spirit breathes into Mu'in. So it is not I who
says this, but in fact I am the second Jesus.'36

This Holy Spirit he claimed to being breathed into him every moment
has been spoken of in the Quran as being breathed into Hadhrat Maryas
also as either His Spirit37 or else
His Word38 as a result of which she
became pregnant and delivered a son named Hadhrat Isa ibne Mariamas.39
And, this Spirit or Word of God which was breathed into Hadhrat Maryas
has been further explained by Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh
who stated that:

'Whether the word of God is from behind the curtain or not, He bestows
the very thing He gave to Mary.'40

Now, when the testimony of the Quran and Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumi'srh
explanation are read in conjunction with Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishti'srh
declarations, one is obliged to assume that the Holy Spirit which he maintained
could enable the 'Mary of her time to give birth' and which he stated was
being 'breathed into him every moment' must be the very thing which God
gave unto Mary and this is how Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh
came to be the second Jesus.

What judgement would Abdul Hafeez pronounce against Hadhrat Khawaja
Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh for being born a second Jesusas
through the Holy Spirit being breathed into him? Would he state that the
revered patron saint of Ajmeer Sharif was delivered from his own uterus
as the author of Two in One has had the impertinence to state Hadhrat
Ahmadas was?4l
Would he assert that the whole building of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din
Chishti'srh beliefs are founded on a ridiculous idea
as he asserts Hadhrat Ahmad'sas beliefs are founded
on for expressing the same idea?42
Would he denounce Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh
as a mad man for having previously subscribed to the same beliefs as Hadhrat
Ahmadas, as he is seen to have denounced Hadhrat Ahmadas
in his publication?43

One would also draw the attention of the author of Two in One
to the vile caricature of a pregnant man looking into a mirror asking why
he has been missed by the Guinness Book of Records44
and ask him that since Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh
was also born a second Jesusas from within himself
after the Holy Spirit was breathed into him. Would this pir of Gujjo now
consider such a sordid caricature of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh
to be in order in his future publications of Two in One? Furthermore,
since Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh declared
that the Holy Spirit which could enable the Mary of her time to give birth
to a Jesus every day was being breathed into him every moment and consequently,
this is how he became Jesus, would Abdul Hafeez now consider it proper
for him to sketch a similar artist's impression of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in
ud Din Chishtirh depicting him as a man and a woman
with a common pregnant stomach on the cover page of his future editions
of Two in One? Would that not, in his opinion make the beliefs of
Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh more simple
and understandable at a glance and also illustrate to the millions of people
who hold the patron saint of Ajmeer Sharif in high esteem, to visualise
the mental state of their mind and the basis of their beliefs?

Among other Muslim sufis, Hadhrat Shams ud Din Tabrizrh
claimed to be the spirit which was breathed into Mary and the soul which
was the life of Jesus and the breath of Jesus.45
Hence, Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh referred to him
as Hadhrat Maryas and Hadhrat Jesusas.46
Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh also claimed to be Hadhrat
Jesusas47and so was Hadhrat
Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvirh declared him by Hadhrat
Muhammad Ismail Shaheedrh.48
Hadhrat Muhiy ud Din Ibne Arabirh called his spiritual
mentor Isa ibne Mariam49 and in recent
times Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi was given the appellation of Jesus by
the scholars of Deaband.50 This is
a tip of the iceberg and in the interest of brevity one is not able to
cite numerous other examples where a large number of saints and scholars
of the ummah have either claimed the appellation of Hadhrat Jesusas
for themselves or else have had this bestowed upon them. Yet, none of them
were born the son of Hadhrat Maryas. Hence, the only
manner in which they could have become Jesus is through undergoing this
phenomenon of God infusing the spirit of Jesus in them as a result of which
they came to be pregnant in an allegoric sense to eventually be born as
Ibne Mariam. It is on account of a universal acknowledgement of this concept
that Hadhrat Khawaja Mir Dardrh is reported to have
stated that 'every perfect man, by the all encompassing power of God, is
the Jesus of his time.'51

One would now leave it to Abdul Hafeez to determine for himself whether
he considers all these sufis of the ummah who claimed to be Jesus to be
suffering from hallucinations and mad men as he considers Hadhrat Ahmadas
to be.52 One would also let him consider
if he thinks it proper for him to depict them as pregnant men looking into
the mirror begging a question as to why has the Guinness Book of Records
missed them.53 The author of Two
in One is seen to have justified his sordid caricature of a man and
a woman with a common pregnant abdomen as being merely an artist's impression
of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement in relation to him being
first named Mary after which the soul of Jesus was infused into him and
he was eventually born as Ibne Mariam.54
He has then invited Ahmadi Muslims to suggest a more appropriate picture
for the cover of his book if this sordid one is found offensive while promising
to destroy all the existing copies of his book and publish a new edition,
inclusive of an apology, with the suggested picture.55
In that event, rather than suggest anything to him, one would let him tax
his integrity and determine whether drawing rude caricatures of all these
sufis depicting them as half men and half women, sharing a common pregnant
abdomen is proper for the future editions of his book.56
If not, then would the pir of Gujjo explain his refusal? Would such a caricature
of all the aforementioned sufis not, in his opinion, illustrate to their
respective followers, how sick they are as he alleges Ahmadi Muslims are?
Would it not allow them to visualise the basis of their religion as he
states this rude cartoon has been drawn to allow Ahmadi Muslims to visualise
the state of their religion?57 And
finally, would he also consider it proper to refer to them as the Don Quixote
of their respective cities as he has the impertinence to refer to Hadhrat
Ahmadas as such58
for believing that a man can become spiritually pregnant by the spirit
of God and thereafter be born from within one's self? If not, then would
Abdul Hafeez not be giving evidence of his singular bias against Hadhrat
Ahmadas and therefore his enmity towards him? Why then
does he take exception to the appellation of an enemy on the cover page
of the Mubahala?

While the author of Two in One is considering these questions,
one would bring to his notice that this entire concept of being named Mary
and the soul of Jesus being infused in one and one being born as Ibne Mariam,
initially recorded and explained in Braheen e Ahmadiyya by Hadhrat
Ahmadas was regarded as being within the accepted conventions
of Islamic thought by none other than Abdul Hafeez's patron saint - Maulvi
Sanaullah Amritsari who having studied Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'ssa
explanation of this concept, stated:

'According to the approved conventions the meanings of the explanations
given by Mirza Sahib should be accepted as correct.'59

Since Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari never claimed to have experienced a
phenomenon of such spiritual excellence, it would be unfair to ask Abdul
Hafeez if he would consider it proper to depict him in his caricatures.
Yet, he is seen by his aforementioned statement to subscribe to the feasibility
of this phenomenon taking place and hence one would only ask him if he
would now care to denounce his own spiritual mentor for subscribing to
a ridiculous idea and also accuse him of madness? Furthermore, since Maulvi
Sanaullah Amritsari accepted the Islamic basis of this concept and Abdul
Hafeez does not, does that not make the author of Two in One a disbeliever
in Islamic concepts. Why then does he take exception to the appellation
of a disbeliever on the cover page of the Mubahala? A liar he has sufficiently
been proved in the preceding chapters. Why then should he take exception
to these three appellations being applied to him.

Finally, one might recall Abdul Hafeez's attention to the fact that
his charges of insanity against a commissioned apostle of God Almighty
is not something unknown to the history of religion. It is customary for
disbelievers to accuse God Almighty's righteous servants of suffering from
hallucinations and of madness and the Quran gives sufficient evidence of
such charges being levied against God's Messengers by disbelievers from
the beginning of the history of mankind. Hence, the Holy Quran states that
the disbelievers said to Hadhrat Noahas:

'He is only a man possessed. Wait [and have patience] with him for a
time.'60

As regards Hadhrat Hudas, the Holy Quran states
that the disbelievers said to him:

'We say nothing but that [perhaps] some of our gods may have seized
thee with imbecility.'61

Hadhrat Salihas was also accused of the same by
the disbelievers and according to the Holy Quran, they said to him:

The same fate was suffered by Hadhrat Mosesas. The
Holy Quran states that the arch believer of that age, Pharaoh stated to
the Israelites:

'Truly, your apostle who has been sent to you is a veritable madman!'63

The Holy Prophet of Islam, Hadhrat Muhammadsa was
also accused as such by the disbelievers. Hence, the Holy Quran commanded
him to declare:

'I admonish you on one point: that ye stand up before God, [it may be]
in pairs, or [it may be] singly, and reflect [with yourselves]: Your companion
is not possessed: he is no less than a Warner to you, in face of terrible
penalty.'64

Such allegation of being possessed and seized with imbecility; of being
bewitched and madness continue to be levied against God's commissioned
apostles to this day and age. Hence, one observes that Hadhrat Jesusas
is accused of, God forbid, experiencing delusions65
and Hadhrat Muhammadsa of, God forbid, experiencing
strange visions66 by the kuffar.
In accusing Hadhrat Ahmadas of suffering from hallucinations
and of madness, this ignorant pir of Gujjo is only giving evidence of his
affiliation with the disbelievers since he is following the sunnah of
the disbelievers who have traditionally accused God's apostles of suffering
from hallucinations and of madness. Furthermore, these charges against
Hadhrat Ahmadas being void of any truth, Abdul Hafeez
is proving himself to be a personified liar also and an enemy of Hadhrat
Ahmadas for falsely accusing him of something he was
not. And yet, the author of Two in One has the audacity to take
offence to the appellation of a liar, a disbeliever and an enemy being
stated on the Mubahala challenge. If he is not a liar who lies through
his teeth against the beliefs of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community; a disbeliever
who disbelieves in the validity of Islamic concepts and an enemy who attempts
to manipulate some perfectly Islamic statements of Hadhrat Ahmadas
to his detriment, then what is he?